Like you said, you want to err on the side of caution. Which is reasonable. Since you can't get pregnant and are unlikely to get someone pregnant, it is convenient for you to say life begins at conception.

Maybe if you had more at steak (and religion was out of the picture), you would be more reasonable about the definition of when life starts.

Don't get me wrong here. If laws were written to make me happy, abortion wouldn't be legal...but for other people, an abortion may be a tough but good decision.

Thursday, March 13, 2014 1:14:54 PMI really didn't want to get into this fray, but good ol' Andrew155 has been spewing his nonsense yet again...

@Andrew155 says: "even Europe has stricter laws than us. Their laws would be considered KKK laws here."

You do realize, I hope, that Europe is not a country? Lumping Europe's abortion policies together is plain stupid, and your conclusion is nothing less than ludicrous.

Of the roughly 47 countries that comprise Europe, NONE totally restrict abortions, two (Andorra and Ireland) allow abortions only to save the mother's life, and five or six others compel you to state the reason for wanting the abortion (but they're still allowed). The other 35+ countries have laws nearly identical to ours.

Thursday, March 13, 2014 11:39:50 AM@AGit: I ONLY mentioned the Bible because someone else brought it up. I'm a Deist, eh? So the death penalty is 'less' punishment? Ooo-kay...

@Keyh: Excellent point! The % of pregnancies caused by rape is really low, and most "pro-lifers" quite reasonably agree an abortion should be allowed.

@Patchy: That's not how I read that passage, but whatevers, eh? DNA Tests are what separates two humans, correct? The Abortionist argument is that the fetus is "part of the woman's body" correct? But if it has separate DNA, how can that be true?

@BuckEyeJoe: There used to be a HUGE number of adoptions. Then came fertility drugs and abortion. NOW there's an industry of getting children from other nations at vast expense to adopt. So which is 'better'? I don't know, but the will for people to adopt is clearly there, yes? People WOULD adopt more if it wasn't so long, difficult and expensive to do.

Thursday, March 13, 2014 10:55:38 AMBut I'm actually a little torn on the issue, for one reason only. If a mother's life is truly at risk, then of course a serious decision has to be made. That decision is personal, and should not be legislated. But if its just because someone doesn't want to be accountable for what they've created... well, maybe it shouldn't either. After all, someone without accountability, good sense and who is so selfish as to care so little for the life of their own child, is not likely to turn out to be the best parent anyway. Oh yeah, but there's always adoption. So yeah, I think it should be legislated. Hell, I've got a pregnant cat that I adopted. Took her to the vet to make sure she was. Vet told me I could go on and have her fixed and abort the pregnancy. I couldn't even do that, even though I don't want kittens.

Thursday, March 13, 2014 10:49:30 AMWhen people say that it has "The potential for life" I can't help but laugh. That statement says something like "It MIGHT become a living person, but those cells might turn out to be a rock". Yeah, not all of these cells make it into being a baby, but the vast majority do. If they don't, it is because of some abnormal occurrence outside of the normal order. I have the potential to become rich. It probably won't happen. That is potential. But with those cells, the VAST MAJORITY of the time they do grow into one thing... a living person. NEVER into something else. An egg or sperm cell on their own have the potential to become life. Once they've joined, its a done deal. Potential has been achieved.

Question: How many adopted children do you have? I thought so. Well, until you buck up and adopt at least one, your typical "adoption argument" only serves to illustrate how you ignore God's forgotten newborn children. Seek mercy for your own tainted soul.

Comparing adoption and abortion is the entire position of the pro-lifer. Because this alternative exists, they feel free to mandate the health of the mother. The implications of unwanted (read: forced) pregnancy do NOT end after birth, and this idea that adoption solves any problem is myopic and uneducated. The "don't kill the poor-babies" argument sounds impenetrable in principle, but most of us don't really care about life or the quality of it: we simply want to control the criteria for killing, oppressing, and marginalizing others -- contingent on the contemporary fad or flavor.

Just look to how pro-lifers treat the dregs of society, how they treat those who do not share their opinions, religious or otherwise, and their irreverence of life is plain.

And to address your half-digested retort: why do you assume I am liberal? But of course, the liberals are not (in general) making the adoption argument, so why should they be accountable for

If Pro-Lifers supported Planned Parenthood, sex education, universal healthcare, and other resources that actually are proved to reduce unwanted and teen pregnancies... then I might respect their position.

Thursday, March 13, 2014 7:38:03 AM@Gerry, Well said. While I'm pro-choice, I have to say that I've always respected the argument you present. There's good logic and consideration there, and so it's not a position I can debate. I can only disagree because of my feelings on the subject. Those who are against abortion strictly because "It says in the Bible...", however, have no thoughts of their own on the subject. I don't argue with them because there's no point in arguing with an idiot.

Thursday, March 13, 2014 6:48:12 AM @ turdburglar, I don't see how any of this is "convenient" for me. It's just fact. Bottom line is you don't know when it becomes a person. No one does neither psychic, preacher or scientist. 10 inches long of 1/2 inch? You can only guess when you think it qualifies as a person. What if you guess wrong? You've killed a baby.

As a babies life is the stakes, I choose to err on the side of caution and not kill a baby.

Well news flash, People get pregnant. many times, they don't want to be pregnant. Maybe they shouldnt be having sex? Doesn't matter they do. Preaching abstinence is about as effective as the war on drugs.

If you do not want abortions then you MUST be responsible and pay for the poor child's upkeep, because you know that an irresponsible, poor woman cannot.

I'd love to see a vote, how many pro-lifers would agree to become official, registered pro-lifers in exchange for a nationwide abortion ban (except in rape/incest/mothers health, etc.)

The cost of being a registered pro-lifer would be 25% of your gross income. NO ONE would agree to this.

Thursday, March 13, 2014 5:06:44 AMI'm liberal on most issues. however, I'm generally against Abortion. I believe everyone has a right to life. Now there are situations where I think abortion should he an option. I'm not for removing it completely I simply think we have to change as a society.

Those spouting Bible verses where are you after the child is born? What about all the poor people? You want to take away welfare, government assistance. 5Cats, Crakr, Ollie, continuously bash government. you guys from your own postings regularly don't give two poos about people after they pop out of the womb. It's a two way street. Wealth inequality, government assistance. education are all affected by new life. I don't get how you guys argue pro-life and in the same breath are all about survival of the fittest on everything else.

Thursday, March 13, 2014 4:27:55 AMTo me? That is what makes it a separate human being. DNA isn't arbitrary, like "breathing" or heartbeats. It's easily verifiable, scientifically provable. So if I take two of those cells, with DNA, and put them in a petri dish, does that mean I have a human in my petri dish? I think you need to read up what the word "arbitrary" means, because you don't seem to understand it. DNA =/= person.

Thursday, March 13, 2014 4:20:30 AM@5cats: It's amusing to me that you would bring up that particular passage in Exodus, because what it really says is that their God does not consider a fetus a life. If it were, the punishment for miscarriage not causing harm to the woman would be death, but it isn't.

Thursday, March 13, 2014 4:13:08 AM@Daegog: Here I thought that the steps necessary to get pregnant was (typically) a voluntary process. If women are walking down the streets and getting pregnant all of a sudden, then I agree with your viewpoint!

Thursday, March 13, 2014 3:40:49 AMThank god abortion is legal and relatively cheap in Europe. That's why we don't get ppl who post these kind of pictures. They don't get born. :p

All anti abortion ppl are just, not well informed or morons. Prohibiting ppl from getting a abortion because you think is wrong. Is like prohibiting freedom of speech because some one said something that offended you. Accept that not everyone will want or think the same way you do.

Either we are free to make our own choices. Or we give up freedom for the sake of not agreeing with some one els.

Thursday, March 13, 2014 3:24:21 AM@5Cats, as I've already said by direct quote, it's about violence between men, the miscarriage is an inclusion (treated, by the way, as less important than cursing one's parents). Nothing to do with abortion. It's also amusing that those who oppose abortion seem to consider that the other side revels in abortion, as if we couldn't get pregnant quick enough and have a laugh falling down steps or poking with coathangers. Moronic, indeed. I don't think that anyone wants to abort, it's not an easy decision. But once taken, the last thing they need is a bible thumping twat telling them fairy tales about god's awesome plan. I really hope that your kids (if you have any) never insult you.

Thursday, March 13, 2014 12:05:42 AMAbortion legality is ONLY an issue for poor people. If it were totally barred in the US, anyone of means would simply run over to some other country and flush that kid before the return flight was fueled.

So, now that we know this is really a issue about MONEY, lets talk about redistributing the wealth and increasing welfare, because guess who cant have that abortion now? POOR WOMEN. And they need cash to feed that baby that you INSISTED be born.

So are all you pro lifers so in favor of increasing welfare or do you just want starving poor babies throughout the country? You HAVE to have one or the other. You cannot pretend that the baby's mother will have means to take care of it, should she? Probably, but thats not reality.